Monday, 27 May 2013

Hugh Fitzgerald Asks David Cameron to Define Radical Islam.

Hugh Fitzgerald at New English Review asks an important question of Cameron et al, who refuse to accept the reality of core Islam. Quote:

Cameron and Clegg and Teresa May and others should be asked, publicly, to define ‘radicalization’ among Muslims. Is there a different Qur'an that the ‘radicals’ read? A different biography of Muhammad, the Perfect Man? 

No, the radicals read exactly the same Qur'an, the same Hadith, the same Sira. And the testimony of every defector from Islam is always the same: Islam is violent, Islam is dangerous, Islam is deceptive, Islam is based on an uncompromising division of the world between Believer and Unbeliever and is obsessed with territory, with the further division of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, that is between the lands of where Muslims rule and what, for now, are still the lands of the Infidels. 

Between the two camps, according to the texts and tenets of Islam, there exists a state of permanent war, though not necessarily of open warfare on the battlefield. Islam teaches that the supreme duty of Muslims is to engage in Jihad, that is the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, so that ultimately, as is only right and just, Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere.

Cameron should be asked to name a single text on which the "radicals" rely that is not also read, and regarded as part of an immutable text, by all other Muslims. If he cannnot do so  -- and he cannnot, nor can Clegg or May or the columnists in The Guardian and The Independent -- then they will be shown up. And shown up they must be.

Quite so Mr Fitzgerald, but unfortunately we are not yet in a position to ask Mr Cameron such an obvious question, and we know our MSM certainly won’t.

1 comment:

  1. Now it is true that some Muslims are peacable enough. Yet it has to borne in mind that some very peaceful Muslims, to the utter “surprise” and “shock” of their friends and family, have become shaheeds.

    This ongoing discussion since 9/11 on the existence moderate Islam or Muslims, as opposed to just Islam and Muslims, is predicated on the belief, or fervent hope, that moderate Muslims will somehow be able to civilise Islam, such that it no longer poses an existential threat to us. There seems to be no end to this debate. Let us therefore consider two scenarios where moderate Islam does actually exist, and there are sufficient numbers of Muslims to show this to be the case.

    Case 1. Let us consider the situation that moderate Muslims prove that the correct interpretation of Islam was the moderate one (whatever that is). They even go further and make the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the Jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a great relief to all. But I counter that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes and return to the traditions of the Koran. They will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.

    The larger the number of Muslims, moderate or radical, the greater will be the demands for Sharia, and politicians will rush to accommodate that demographic. The distinction between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims is therefore meaningless; it is of no help to us.

    Case 2. Let us suppose that moderate Muslims came out of hiding and utterly trounce their Jihadi cousins on what constitutes “true” Islam i.e., the moderate, non-violent one. Having got rid of “radical” Islam’s main reasons for waging Jihad would not be the end of the matter. Moderate Muslims will demand their price for having kept Jihad, the fundamental directive of Islam, at bay. That price will again be the implementation of Sharia, initially for Muslims anyway. This will come about since moderate Muslims have not abandoned Islam, but are still dutiful Muslims (we will end up with a kind of permanent social coalition government of non-Muslims and moderate Muslims). Even if we agree to this, the “radicals” will still be out there, and amongst us. To keep them at bay, moderate Muslims will be forced to make ever-increasing demands for greater Islamisation. “Good cop bad cop” scenarios come to mind. It will never end.

    In effect moderate and radical Muslims work together. There is no actual treaty as such; it is simply understood.

    The real problem of course is the central tenets of Islam. As Ali Sena succinctly puts it ” There may be moderate Muslims, but their is no moderate Islam”